Ashes Cricket General Discussion

[Alberts]

My bet next one is Cricket World Cup 2019

The big issue there is that they'll lack a brand, which ultimately they're going to need.

 

[Deleted member 185125]

The big issue there is that they'll lack a brand, which ultimately they're going to need.

Hope Ashes Cricket does really well and help them in getting all the licenses. I pray and hope it happens.

 

[Chief]

The big issue there is that they'll lack a brand, which ultimately they're going to need.

I dunno. Not convinced that a brand is all that important when you're the only game in town. Historically names have changed, regional variations have happened... It has never seemed to have any impact on sales/awareness. People don't really care: there are so few cricket games that those who do will be aware of it regardless of a brand.

 

[Alberts]

I dunno. Not convinced that a brand is all that important when you're the only game in town. Historically names have changed, regional variations have happened... It has never seemed to have any impact on sales/awareness. People don't really care: there are so few cricket games that those who do will be aware of it regardless of a brand.

That's kind of the point though, they surely want it to become more than just a hardcore thing. Games like FIFA sell on their name more than their quality these days, it's not just "some football game". A unified brand going forward is surely something they'll want.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

I'd say there isn't a more recognisable brand in cricket than The Ashes.

 

[blockerdave]

I dunno. Not convinced that a brand is all that important when you're the only game in town. Historically names have changed, regional variations have happened... It has never seemed to have any impact on sales/awareness. People don't really care: there are so few cricket games that those who do will be aware of it regardless of a brand.

haven't you spent 4 years arguing that don bradman was a bad brand?

 

[Chief]

That's kind of the point though, they surely want it to become more than just a hardcore thing. Games like FIFA sell on their name more than their quality these days, it's not just "some football game". A unified brand going forward is surely something they'll want.

"International Cricket 2010" showed no significant difference sales wise to "Ashes Cricket 2009" given the circumstances.
Brian Lara was Ricky Ponting and Shane Warne at various times (and indeed "Yuvraj Singh").
Those weren't hardcore games - they were as mainstream as they come.

I agree that if it was FIFA vs PES then brand is everything. But not for Cricket. The Ashes license is the very best available in terms of sales IMO, irrespective of what else is inside the game.

 

[Chief]

haven't you spent 4 years arguing that don bradman was a bad brand?

"Bad brand" is harsh. I just don't think it added anything (except maybe in Australia).
If it had been called BIG ANT CRICKET <<YEAR>> I suspect it would have sold just as many, but without the costs and restrictions that licenses bring.

I do think that other brands could have added a lot of interest/sales to DBC had it been something else.[DOUBLEPOST=1510309522][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'd say there isn't a more recognisable brand in cricket than The Ashes.

For the markets you can sell your game into, I think this is 100% true. POSSIBLY MORE.

 

[angad]

"Bad brand" is harsh. I just don't think it added anything (except maybe in Australia).
If it had been called BIG ANT CRICKET <<YEAR>> I suspect it would have sold just as many, but without the costs and restrictions that licenses bring.

I do think that other brands could have added a lot of interest/sales to DBC had it been something else.

I do think having the Bradman brand did add some authenticity to the game in the eyes of the public since it was a new developer and it was pitched up against an 'Ashes' game. Ashes turned out to be crap, however if it had been a good game and had succeeded, then having some brand behind the game would have been way better than none. However, Ashes was crap, so it really didn't matter in the long run.

 

[Gurjot95]

The Ashes license is the very best available in terms of sales IMO, irrespective of what else is inside the game.

Pretty sure everyone knows that you can sell any type of turd with Ashes brand on it now. (No disrespect to Big Ant, I am not referring to this game which everyone might have guessed already)

 

[Alberts]

"International Cricket 2010" showed no significant difference sales wise to "Ashes Cricket 2009" given the circumstances.
Brian Lara was Ricky Ponting and Shane Warne at various times (and indeed "Yuvraj Singh").
Those weren't hardcore games - they were as mainstream as they come.

I agree that if it was FIFA vs PES then brand is everything. But not for Cricket. The Ashes license is the very best available in terms of sales IMO, irrespective of what else is inside the game.

Not to be this blunt about it, but there existed little to no brand loyalty with games such as Brian Lara Cricket, etc. because they never really built any consumer trust. They were mediocre games that were poorly supported for their time, and we're not talking about merry-go-names for games here (such as many cricket games have had), but rather building a brand over many years. The closest that cricket has had in that respect was EA Cricket, and that still maintains somewhat of a cult following.

It's not just games like FIFA and PES where brand matters though, the NBA 2k series, Madden, etc. all subsist on their reputations. When people walk into a shop and see one, they know at the very least that those games have a strong pedigree. Without such, that kind of consumer simply isn't in play for such a game.

 

[Chief]

Not to be this blunt about it, but there existed little to no brand loyalty with games such as Brian Lara Cricket, etc. because they never really built any consumer trust. They were mediocre games that were poorly supported for their time, and we're not talking about merry-go-names for games here (such as many cricket games have had), but rather building a brand over many years. The closest that cricket has had in that respect was EA Cricket, and that still maintains somewhat of a cult following.

It's not just games like FIFA and PES where brand matters though, the NBA 2k series, Madden, etc. all subsist on their reputations. When people walk into a shop and see one, they know at the very least that those games have a strong pedigree. Without such, that kind of consumer simply isn't in play for such a game.

With all due respect, nahh, you're wrong. Brian Lara is an absolute stone cold classic of a game name, known throughout mainstream casual gamers. And consumer's trusted it because it scored consistently high review scores. It wasn't "supported" (if you mean by the developer) because you couldn't at that time: those days the game had to be finished and polished before release, and you couldn't patch it afterwards (at least not on console, which is where like 98% of the sales were). They were 8/10 games right out of the box.

Madden, NBA etc have a strong pedigree because they are huge, fully licensed products and almost impossible to compete with. So no-one DOES compete with them, and they grow bigger and stronger because they have consumer bases much larger than cricket.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Not to be this blunt about it, but there existed little to no brand loyalty with games such as Brian Lara Cricket, etc. because they never really built any consumer trust. They were mediocre games that were poorly supported for their time, and we're not talking about merry-go-names for games here (such as many cricket games have had), but rather building a brand over many years. The closest that cricket has had in that respect was EA Cricket, and that still maintains somewhat of a cult following.

It's not just games like FIFA and PES where brand matters though, the NBA 2k series, Madden, etc. all subsist on their reputations. When people walk into a shop and see one, they know at the very least that those games have a strong pedigree. Without such, that kind of consumer simply isn't in play for such a game.

I'd argue FIFA, NBA, Madden are as much down to licensed content and lack of competition. FIFA could churn out a load of crap and some people would still choose it over PES because they have more licensed content. Are there any other basketball or American football games?

 

[Deleted member 185125]

Can anyone give me details on the total number of licensed players and stadiums in the new Ashes game?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Alberts]

With all due respect, nahh, you're wrong. Brian Lara is an absolute stone cold classic of a game name, known throughout mainstream casual gamers. And consumer's trusted it because it scored consistently high review scores. It wasn't "supported" (if you mean by the developer) because you couldn't at that time: those days the game had to be finished and polished before release, and you couldn't patch it afterwards (at least not on console, which is where like 98% of the sales were). They were 8/10 games right out of the box.

Some of the older games were good, but the later ones (2005 and 2007 in particular) were mediocre, and what followed from CodeMasters (Ashes 2009 and International Cricket 2010) were what I was thinking about with poorly supported, most notably the console patch for Ashes 2009 which never arrived.

Madden, NBA etc have a strong pedigree because they are huge, fully licensed products and almost impossible to compete with. So no-one DOES compete with them, and they grow bigger and stronger because they have consumer bases much larger than cricket.

Except there exist games with a strong pedigree which aren't fully licenced, and up against strong competition. The PES series is still going strong, and even if not as much of a sales behemoth of FIFA, is still a successful series for Konami. The Football Manager series with none of the licencing bling built a strong brand and fought off not only EA's riches (licencing and all), but also the studio they left to form SI and the series.